Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

I didn't mean for the imperfect example of the Danes to take it off tangent, it was only to illustrate a people I could think of for whom raiding was integral but your examples or any other is just as well. I think someone (civ) could have taken it further and been sociopathic and only relied on military force for survival. Obviously there are benefits in diversifying, but I think while not ideal, it's possible and could work, in some circumstances.

View on HN

It does work to an extent, but it's self-limiting; for what pure militarism can and can't do, look at Sparta.

Prussia should also not be forgotten in that context.

You mean like the Mongols? They didn't stop and farm. Their entire society was built around conquest and pillage.

Until they established city centers, trade routes, spread religious freedom to among their subjects, developed population centers and their agricultural output, standardized exchange rates and quality bars, created systems of news and material delivery, and all that other stuff.

Their empire was, of course, extremely short, as it collapsed with the death of their Great Kahn soon after it established itself and its following leaders abandoned the previous inroads in the West to focus on the prize of capturing China (that ultimately failed).

Our history tends to focus on the expansion of their empire rather than its subsequent administration, I think in part for that reason.

True, but I think it tentatively proves it's possible, if not effective, long term.

They didn't raise crops, but still practiced a considerable amount of agriculture based around grazing herds.

And raising horses, nomad's still practice agriculture.

I suppose so, I forgot western civ was one battle loss away from not existing as a continuous entity. So yeah, military only seems to be possible, even if the Mongols were not 100% faithful to this strategy, I think someone could have been successful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com